On death and dying (iii)

I did say I would review My Sister's Keeper (especially I think for you Vicky!).
I dislike the novels of Jodi Picoult the more I read them, sentimental and mawkish and not very complex.
Now, one thing I know about death is that it is complex. And this may seem trite, but it is also important.
My Facebook review is here (I think if you click it it shoudl take you to my Flixtster page, but this may only work if you are on Facebook)
The plot has been modified so it is a bit better than the book, and the acting is great.
The basic tenet of the plot is a girl dying of cancer has a sister who was probably conceived so that there might be " compatible genetic material" . Anyway at age twelve, or so, that child petitions the court (it could only happen in America) to prevent her parents using her body any more.
It is a good twisty plot.
The question that might well be asked is do parents have the right to continue to save their children when their children have had enough!! Ms C Diaz is forceful as the mother, and leaves you without a doubt that parents will, can and should prevail. But fails to see that this is not onlky killing her daughter(s) but also her family. (Not too subtle...but a not unimportant point about what can happen during grieving)
In the midst of this a dying person has had enough.
It's worth a look.

One thing I know after 30 odd years of helping people with death, is that most people chew it up. And come out of the experience of grieving, as difficult as it is for anyone, better people.
We were warned in our early training that some people who "get stuck" need help...and that's true. But most people don't get stuck and can process it.
The worst thing, it seems to me, that you can do is to refuse to engage with it.
This is probably because death and grief are likely to be the most authentic experiences we will ever have.

In the midst of this my brother-in-law's Mama, Teresa, (who has been declining for some weeks now) died last night. She made the tenderest calamari in the world!

The right to die properly

Death is an amazing thing. I did a funeral last week of a man who was 90 and family flew from the other end of the world to be here. His wife of some years unfortunately has Alzheimer's and one can only hope she took in some of what was going on. They had had a couple of tender moments in the days leading up to the death, but in such circumstances...one mentally diminished and the other under a great deal of end-of-life stress...you just trust that we do what we can.
It always seems to me that if we overcome our fear of the process then it is open to rich possibilities.

Narrow Perspective

When I was a "trainee" priest an older wiser colleague said that the trouble with Funeral Directors was that they thought they were 'directing' the funeral and that ministers thought of them as 'undertakers'. This bears some thought.
One director/undertaker runs an ad in the paper which says

• My Death Wish
• Don't go to Church
• Don't like wasting money
• Care for my partner and my children
• Don't want all the pomp and costs of a full funeral.
• I am choosing a short. simple, non religious
• MINI-FUNERAL at a cheap price

I actually think that this is socially inept and bereft of understanding what a funeral is actually about.
While I think it is possible for funerals to be an outrageous financial burden, this is not the only factor that needs to be taken into account.
I say this not because I wish to preserve the religious component when clearly many people are alienated by this, but I don't actually believe that many undertakers are better qualified to 'direct' funerals.
In fact I could give you any number of instances when undertakers have been blasé with their charges to the point of an affront, treating the dead as if they were hunks of concrete to be carted around.
They often lack the subtlety or capability of dealing with people who are actually grieving. Too many funerals fail to confront grief, and become sort of like birthday parties where the particular celebration is that the guest of honour happens to be dead.

At the very least, the religious (any religion really) helps us to confront our mortality.

What does this particular ad mean when it says it doesn't want all the pomp of a "full funeral"?
Is it somehow promoting a part-funeral, or a less than complete obsequy and why?
If I know anything after 30 years of taking funerals it is that you don't get a second chance to get it right.
Unfortunately the narrow viewpoint that this sort of company promotes,

• as cheap and as quick as possible,
• preferably without any grief or sadness
• an alleged celebration of life but no appreciation of death

I suspect does more damage than good. This doesn't need to be expensive, or religious but it shouldn't be cheap and nasty. Funerals are important. Important enough to get right.

A good death

One of those letters appeared in the paper earlier this week in which a correspondent declared she was positioning herself to make a decision that would allow her to die decently.

This seems not unreasonable. All of us, you would think, should be allowed to die with dignity.

Often we don't pay enough attention to this, and some times it is hard.

But it strikes me that it should be hard. Life is not without cost, and that much at least should be evident as we die.

It should be more than just ensuring that the appropriate tablets are in the top drawer so that if we feel we are ready today then we can just pop them.

There is a certain sense of irony that just at the moment there is a lot of ruckus about an abandoned whale calf becasue one of the suggestions is that it should be put down. People seem to be worried about humans getting too much treatment, and in this case Colin the whale (who calls a whale 'Colin?) not getting enough, Could you do more for a dying animal? It is of course the question that haunts us all (as it has done about our own beloved dog in the last fortnight)
But I rather think that euthanasia of people is different.
It should, as I say, be hard not easy.
One of the comments the letter-writer made earlier in the week was that she didn't want to be in a nursing home "losing control of my bowels". This is nasty stuff, but would it now mean that gastroenteritis or irritable bowel syndrome is now an indicator for potential euthanasia.
I personally don't believe that the health system is keeping anyone alive who shouldn't be.
The fact that the last few weeks or even months may be awful for the dying and for those who surround them, is something of the nature of death.
But more goes on at these times than just the breakdown of the body. Our engagement with the process of grief is probably the most important thing human beings do. I have had enough encounters with raw grief to know that this approaches the truth.
Cut it short, and you risk cutting off this process in mid-stream.
No one should be treated beyond the level of reasonable intervention. But the bar cannot be set so low that we can no longer engage with the sadness of death.

Besetting sadness

Blogging seems like a trivial exercise in comparison with Chris's death. However I suggest that even making that observation which helps us to properly contextualise both things is worthwhile.
I am deeply saddened by it all. Terrified like all parents of the death of one's own child, it is unimaginable to think what Steve and Judy and Michael must be going through.
Steve wrote yesterday that Judy wrapped Chris in the special quilt that had been made for him while he was in hospital and I was reminded (on this her feast day) of how another Mother wrapped her son when she took his body from the soldiers.
No mother should have to do it. Too many do have to.